DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Trump Can't (Easily) Remove Mueller and What Happens If He Tries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why Trump Can't (Easily) Remove Mueller and What Happens If He Tries Why Trump Can't (Easily) Remove Mueller —and What Happens If He Tries Noah Bookbinder, Norman Eisen, and Caroline Fredrickson1 December 6, 2017 1 Noah Bookbinder is the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and a former federal corruption prosecutor. Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the chairman of CREW and a former white-collar criminal defense attorney. Caroline Fredrickson is president of the American Constitution Society (ACS). This memorandum was prepared for the Presidential Investigation Education Project, a joint initiative by ACS and CREW to promote informed public evaluation of the investigations by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and others into Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters. This effort includes developing and disseminating legal analysis of key issues that emerge as the inquiries unfold and connecting members of the media and public with ACS and CREW experts and other legal scholars who are writing on these matters. Table of Contents Why Trump Can't (Easily) Remove Mueller—and What Happens If He Tries ......................1 Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................2 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................3 II. There Are Significant Legal Obstacles to Trump Firing Special Counsel Mueller ...........4 A. Under DOJ Regulations, Only the Attorney General Can Fire the Special Counsel ...........4 B. The Special Counsel May Only Be Fired for Good Cause and There Is None ...................5 C. The President Does Not Have Inherent Authority to Fire the Special Counsel .................7 D. There Are Significant Procedural Obstacles to Effectuating a Firing by Rescinding the DOJ Special Counsel Regulations .......................................................................................9 E. The Risks to Ending the Special Counsel’s Russia Investigation Are Prohibitive ...........12 III. Mueller’s Firing Could Be Challenged by the Special Counsel, His Staff, and Possibly Other Interested Parties ........................................................................................................13 A. Overview of Standing Requirements .................................................................................13 B. Special Counsel Mueller Is Likely to Have Standing to Challenge His Own Firing. .......14 C. The Special Counsel’s Staff May Have Standing to Challenge Mueller’s Firing .............15 D. Certain Other Individuals and Organizations May Have Standing to Challenge Special Counsel Mueller’s Removal ..............................................................................................16 IV. The Special Counsel’s Office, Staff, Records, Pending Investigations, and Impaneled Grand Juries Would Likely Survive His Firing .................................................................18 V. How Congress Can Make It Even Harder for President Trump to End the Russia Investigation ...........................................................................................................................21 VI. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................22 !2 I. Introduction Robert S. Mueller III was appointed special counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017.2 Mueller’s mandate includes the investigation of “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation,” and “federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation.”3 Since his appointment, the White House and its allies have engaged in a campaign to discredit Special Counsel Mueller.4 Early on, surrogates for the president suggested that he could fire Mueller,5 and with each development in the special counsel’s investigation, there have been additional rounds of speculation that the president might take such action.6 That risk continues now that the special counsel’s first indictments and guilty pleas are in place, and with reports that Michael Flynn may be negotiating cooperation with Mueller’s investigation of those close to Trump--or even the president himself. Outside voices on the right have been vocal in calling for a firing. The most recent statement from the White House on the matter was that the president merely had “no intention or plan” to fire the special counsel.7 In this report, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the legality and effects of such a possible action. We conclude that President Trump cannot easily bring an end to the Russia investigation. First, President Trump lacks unilateral authority to fire Mueller. While President Trump might compel others to do so on his behalf or instruct the attorney general to revoke DOJ’s special counsel regulations, the risks of doing so are prohibitive. History warns that he would be 2 Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Order No. 3915-2017, May 17, 2017, available at https://www.justice.gov/ opa/press-release/file/967231/download. 3 Id.; 28 C.F.R. § 600.4. 4 See, e.g., Richard Painter and Norm Eisen, The White House may claim Mueller has conflicts of interest. Oh, the irony., Washington Post, May 22, 2017, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-white-house- may-claim-mueller-has-conflicts-of-interest-thats-ridiculous/2017/05/22/ affa0c6c-3f28-11e7-8c25-44d09ff5a4a8_story.html?utm_term=.a8393af44d58. 5 Matthew Nussbaum, Can Trump fire Mueller? Yup, and in more ways than one., Politico, Jun. 13, 2017, available at https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/can-trump-fire-special-counsel-robert-mueller-239500 6 See, e.g., David A. Graham, When Will President Trump Fire Robert Mueller?, Atlantic, Jul. 21, 2017, available at https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/when-will-president-trump-fire-robert-mueller/534459/; Mark Plotkin, Have no doubt, President Trump will wind up firing Robert Mueller, The Hill, Sept. 22, 2017, available at http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/351869-have-no-doubt-president-trump-will-wind-up-firing-robert-mueller. 7 Cristiano Lima, White House says Trump has ‘no intention’ to fire Mueller, Politico, Oct. 30, 2017, available at https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/mueller-investigation-trump-white-house-response-244325. !3 risking his presidency, not to mention increasing his exposure to charges of obstruction of justice. Second, any firing would be subject to court challenge by Special Counsel Mueller, his staff, and possibly other parties. Third, firing Special Counsel Mueller would not necessarily bring an end to the investigation that he is leading. In the absence of an order rescinding the appointment of the special counsel, the investigation and associated legal proceedings would continue. Fourth, we explain the ways in which Congress might make it even harder for President Trump to end the Russia investigation by codifying the special counsel regulations and pre- committing to a course of action that would deter interference with the Russia investigation. II. There Are Significant Legal Obstacles to Trump Firing Special Counsel Mueller A. Under DOJ Regulations, Only the Attorney General Can Fire the Special Counsel Under the existing regulatory framework, the president does not have the authority to fire the special counsel. After the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 expired in 1999, the Department of Justice (DOJ) promulgated regulations under an existing Congressional delegation of authority that provided guidelines for the creation, oversight, and termination of a special counsel investigation.8 The special counsel regulations provide that only the attorney general may remove the special counsel: “The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General.”9 Because Attorney General Sessions recused himself from “any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States,” the power to appoint, oversee, and remove the special counsel passed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.10 On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller pursuant to DOJ regulations to serve as special counsel based on the attorney general’s power to 8 See 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.4 – 600.10. 9 Id. (Emphasis added). Even though the statute only refers to the attorney general, it seems a virtual certainty that the acting attorney general would have removal power under these circumstances. See United States v. Libby, 429 F. Supp. 2d 27, 28 (D.D.C. 2006) (“Moreover, it is axiomatic that, at any time, the Deputy Attorney General who delegated to the Special Counsel his authority can revoke that delegation.”); see also Free Enterprise Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 509 (2010) (“Under the traditional default rule, removal is incident to the power of appointment.”). 10 Dep’t of Justice, Attorney General Sessions Statement on Recusal, Mar. 2, 2017, available at https:// www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-statement-recusal. !4 specially appoint attorneys commissioned as special assistants to the attorney general or special
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors: Options for Independent Executive Investigations Name Redacted Legislative Attorney
    Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors: Options for Independent Executive Investigations name redacted Legislative Attorney June 1, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44857 Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors Summary Under the Constitution, Congress has no direct role in federal law enforcement and its ability to initiate appointments of any prosecutors to address alleged wrongdoings by executive officials is limited. While Congress retains broad oversight and investigatory powers under Article I of the Constitution, criminal investigations and prosecutions have generally been viewed as a core executive function and a responsibility of the executive branch. Historically, however, because of the potential conflicts of interest that may arise when the executive branch investigates itself (e.g., the Watergate investigation), there have been calls for an independently led inquiry to determine whether officials have violated criminal law. In response, Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have used both statutory and regulatory mechanisms to establish a process for such inquiries. These responses have attempted, in different ways, to balance the competing goals of independence and accountability with respect to inquiries of executive branch officials. Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Congress authorized the appointment of “special prosecutors,” who later were known as “independent counsels.” Under this statutory scheme, the Attorney General could request that a specially appointed three-judge panel appoint an outside individual to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of criminal law. These individuals were vested with “full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice” with respect to matters within their jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • The Special Counsel's Report: What Do Current DOJ Regulations
    Legal Sidebari The Special Counsel’s Report: What Do Current DOJ Regulations Require? March 7, 2019 In light of media reports that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III is close to concluding his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, the extent to which the findings and conclusions of the Special Counsel’s investigation will be released to Congress and the public after being submitted to the Attorney General has attracted attention. The reporting requirements applicable to the Special Counsel’s investigation indicate a significant degree of deference to the Special Counsel regarding the content of his report to the Attorney General. Governing Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations also give significant deference to the Attorney General regarding release of information related to the report, although the regulations mandate that he report certain information to Congress at the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Some Members of Congress have proposed legislation to ensure that certain information related to the Special Counsel’s investigation is made available to Congress and the public. This Sidebar examines the current legal obligations of the Special Counsel and Attorney General to report information relating to the investigation to Congress and the public. It also provides historical examples of reports issued for other such investigations. A companion Sidebar addresses potential legal issues that may arise if Congress seeks to compel release of information about the investigation, including issues involving executive privilege and the publication of grand jury information. Reporting Requirements Under the Current Special Counsel Regulations Under the current legal framework, there is no statute providing for Special Counsel investigations or specifying information arising from such investigations that must be disclosed to Congress or the public.
    [Show full text]
  • JUNE 10, 2019 Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the Last
    STATEMENT OF JOHN W. DEAN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS: “LESSONS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT: PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION AND OTHER CRIMES.” JUNE 10, 2019 Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the last time I appeared before your committee was July 11, 1974, during the impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon. Clearly, I am not here as a fact witness. Rather I accepted the invitation to appear today because I hope I can give a bit of historical context to the Mueller Report. In many ways the Mueller Report is to President Trump what the so-called Watergate “Road Map” (officially titled “Grand Jury Report and Recommendation Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of Representatives”) was to President Richard Nixon. Stated a bit differently, Special Counsel Mueller has provided this committee a road map. The Mueller Report, like the Watergate Road Map, conveys findings, with supporting evidence, of potential criminal activity based on the work of federal prosecutors, FBI investigators, and witness testimony before a federal grand jury. The Mueller Report explains – in Vol. II, p. 1 – that one of the reasons the Special Counsel did not make charging decisions relating to obstruction of justice was because he did not want to “potentially preempt [the] constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” The report then cites at footnote 2: “See U.S. CONST. ART. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf. OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).” Today, you are focusing on Volume II of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Counsel
    FY 2008 PERFORMANCE BUDGET INDEPENDENT COUNSEL CONGRESSIONAL JUSTIFICATION Table of Contents Page No. I. Overview .............................................................................................................. 1 II. Summary of Program Changes ........................................................................ N/A III. a. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language……... N/A b. General Provision Language……………………………………………….. N/A III. Decision Unit Justification A. Independent Counsel………………………………………………………… 2 IV. Exhibits A. Organizational Chart.................................................................................... N/A B. Summary of Requirements .......................................................................... N/A C. Program Changes by Decision Unit............................................................. N/A E. Resources by DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective ............................................... N/A F. Justification for Base Adjustments .............................................................. N/A G. Crosswalk of 2007 Availability ................................................................... N/A H. Crosswalk of 2008 Availability ................................................................... N/A I. Summary of Reimbursable Resources......................................................... N/A J. Detail of Permanent Positions by Category................................................. N/A K. Financial Analysis of Program Changes.....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Special Counsel Investigations: History, Authority, Appointment and Removal
    Special Counsel Investigations: History, Authority, Appointment and Removal Updated March 13, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44857 SUMMARY R44857 Special Counsel Investigations: History, March 13, 2019 Authority, Appointment and Removal Cynthia Brown The Constitution vests Congress with the legislative power, which includes authority to Legislative Attorney establish federal agencies and conduct oversight of those entities. Criminal investigations and prosecutions, however, are generally regarded as core executive Jared P. Cole functions assigned to the executive branch. Because of the potential conflicts of interest Legislative Attorney that may arise when the executive branch investigates itself, there have often been calls for criminal investigations by prosecutors with independence from the executive branch. In response, Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have used both statutory and regulatory mechanisms to establish a process for such inquiries. These frameworks have aimed to balance the competing goals of independence and accountability with respect to inquiries of executive branch officials. Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, for example, Congress authorized the appointment of “special prosecutors,” who later were known as “independent counsels.” Under this statutory scheme, the Attorney General could request that a specially appointed three-judge panel appoint an outside individual to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of criminal law. These individuals were vested with “full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice” with respect to matters within their jurisdiction. Ultimately, debate over the scope, cost, and effect of the investigations (perhaps most notably the Iran-Contra and the Whitewater investigations) resulted in the law’s expiration and nonrenewal in 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of the Clinton Impeachment and the Death of the Independent Counsel Statute: Toward Depoliticization
    Volume 102 Issue 1 Article 5 September 1999 The Politics of the Clinton Impeachment and the Death of the Independent Counsel Statute: Toward Depoliticization Marjorie Cohn Thomas Jefferson School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr Part of the Courts Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Marjorie Cohn, The Politics of the Clinton Impeachment and the Death of the Independent Counsel Statute: Toward Depoliticization, 102 W. Va. L. Rev. (1999). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol102/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the WVU College of Law at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Law Review by an authorized editor of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cohn: The Politics of the Clinton Impeachment and the Death of the Inde THE POLITICS OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND THE DEATH OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE: TOWARD DEPOLITICIZATION Marjorie Cohn I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................59 II. THE ANDREW JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT ..................................60 III. TE LEGACY OF WATERGATE .................................................60 IV. THE POLITICAL APPOINTMENT OF AN "INDEPENDENT COUNSEL"... ..............................................................................................63 V. STARR'S W AR ..........................................................................66
    [Show full text]
  • Special Counsels and the Presidency: a Conversation with Ken Starr on the Role of the Constitution and the Ongoing Mueller Investigation
    AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE SPECIAL COUNSELS AND THE PRESIDENCY: A CONVERSATION WITH KEN STARR ON THE ROLE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ONGOING MUELLER INVESTIGATION WELCOME: JOHN YOO, AEI PRESENTATION: KEN STARR, AUTHOR, “CONTEMPT: A MEMOIR OF THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION” PANEL DISCUSSION PANELISTS: SAIKRISHNA PRAKASH, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW; KEN STARR, AUTHOR, “CONTEMPT: A MEMOIR OF THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION”; VICTORIA TOENSING, DIGENOVA & TOENSING MODERATOR: JOHN YOO, AEI 2:45–4:00 PM TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 EVENT PAGE: http://www.aei.org/events/special-counsels-and-the-presidency-a- conversation-with-ken-starr-on-the-role-of-the-constitution-and-the-ongoing- mueller-investigation/ TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED BY WWW.DCTMR.COM JOHN YOO: So welcome, everybody, to this panel on independent counsel. And as I promised on Facebook, we will almost certainly also talk about the Kavanaugh nomination. It’s not a joke. (Laughs.) So, my name is John Yoo. I’m a visiting scholar here and professor at Berkeley and also a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. And Judge Starr originally was going to give a lecture, but he actually would like to actually sit and have a conversation with the panelists, so we’re going to dispense with any kind of formal remarks. He’s going to make a — I think a short statement summarizing his book and some of the points, and then we’re going to turn right to an open discussion with the other panelists. So let me just quickly introduce them. You have their full biographies. But, as you all know, Judge Starr has been many, many things: a judge on the DC circuit, solicitor general, law school dean — it’s all been downhill after being law school dean — university president, and an independent counsel in the Clinton Whitewater investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 315 F
    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 8, 2018 Decided February 26, 2019 No. 18-3052 IN RE: GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:18-gj-00034) Paul D. Kamenar argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. James C. Martin argued the cause for amicus curiae Concord Management and Consulting LLC in support of appellant. With him on the briefs were Colin E. Wrabley, Eric A. Dubelier, and Katherine J. Seikaly. Montgomery Blair Sibley was on the brief for amicus curiae Montgomery Blair Sibley in support of appellant. Michael R. Dreeben, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Robert S. Mueller, III, Special Counsel, and Jeannie S. Rhee and Adam C. Jed, Attorneys. Elizabeth B. Wydra and Ashwin P. Phatak were on the brief for amici curiae Constitutional and Administrative Law Scholars in support of appellee. 2 Before: HENDERSON, ROGERS and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS. ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Andrew Miller appeals an order holding him in contempt for failing to comply with grand jury subpoenas served on him by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. He contends the Special Counsel’s appointment is unlawful under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, and therefore the contempt order should be reversed. We affirm. I. The relevant statutory and regulatory authority relating to the context in which this appeal arises are as follows. A. The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice (“the Department”).
    [Show full text]
  • Proposals to Reform Special Counsel Investigations
    Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 2021 Balancing Independence and Accountability: Proposals to Reform Special Counsel Investigations Lawrence Keating Fordham University School of Law Steven Still Fordham University School of Law Brittany Thomas Fordham University School of Law Samuel Wechsler Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation Lawrence Keating, Steven Still, Brittany Thomas, and Samuel Wechsler, Balancing Independence and Accountability: Proposals to Reform Special Counsel Investigations, January (2021) Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/1111 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Balancing Independence and Accountability: Proposals to Reform Special Counsel Investigations Democracy and the Constitution Clinic Fordham University School of Law Lawrence Keating, Steven Still, Brittany Thomas, & Samuel Wechsler January 2021 Balancing Independence and Accountability: Proposals to Reform Special Counsel Investigations Democracy and the Constitution Clinic Fordham University School of Law Lawrence Keating, Steven Still, Brittany Thomas, & Samuel Wechsler January 2021 This report was researched and written during the 2019-2020 academic year by students in Fordham Law School’s Democracy and the Constitution Clinic, where students developed non-partisan recommendations to strengthen the nation’s institutions and its democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hard Line Proposal to Stop Unaccountable Disclosures of Law Enforcement Information
    St. John's University School of Law St. John's Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications 1999 The Leak and the Craft: A Hard Line Proposal to Stop Unaccountable Disclosures of Law Enforcement Information John Q. Barrett St. John's University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LEAK AND THE CRAFT: A HARD LINE PROPOSAL TO STOP UNACCOUNTABLE DISCLOSURES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION John Q. Barrett INTRODUCTION T HE critics of Kenneth W. Starr accused him, in the five-plus years that he served as the multi-tasked Independent Counsel,' of many * Associate Professor, St. John's University School of Law. A.B., Georgetown University, 1983; J.D., Harvard University, 1986. E-mail: jbarrett C-sjulawfac. stjohns.edu. This Article expands upon my presentation as part of a June 5, 1999, panel entitled "After Starr Wars, Part I: The Role and Responsibilities of the Public Prosecutor," at the American Bar Association's Center for Professional Responsibil- ity 25th National Conference. I am grateful to Mary Daly, Art Garwin, and Bruce Green for their planning efforts and invitation, to Michael Simons, Brian Tamanaha, and Sarah Walzer for very helpful comments, and to Karen R.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Counsels Appointed Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Costs and Results of Investigations
    Order Code 98-19 A Independent Counsels Appointed Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Costs and Results of Investigations Updated June 8, 2006 Jack Maskell Legislative Attorney American Law Division Independent Counsels Appointed Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Costs and Results of Investigations Summary This report lists the independent counsels (called “special prosecutors” until 1983) appointed by the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals upon application from the Attorney General of the United States, under the provisions of the law originally enacted in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. The report specifies the dates of the appointments of the independent counsels and the dates of their final reports; sets out in summary fashion the areas or subjects of investigation by the independent counsels; highlights the results of those investigations; and provides the costs of the investigations through September 30, 2005, the date through which the Government Accountability Office has completed the latest published audit of the offices of independent counsels (published March 31, 2006). The information provided from public documents indicates that there have been 20 reported independent counsel or special prosecutor investigations initiated under the provisions of title VI of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended. Because Congress did not pass a reauthorization of the law, the provisions of the independent counsel law expired under a five-year “sunset” provision on June 30, 1999, and independent counsels are no longer named by the Special Division of the Court. Investigations by independent counsels who had already been appointed before June 30, 1999, however, were allowed to continue under the old provisions of the law until the matters assigned to them had been completed (28 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Special Counsel's Report: What Do Current DOJ Regulations
    Legal Sidebari The Special Counsel’s Report: What Do Current DOJ Regulations Require? Cynthia Brown Legislative Attorney March 7, 2019 In light of media reports that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III is close to concluding his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, the extent to which the findings and conclusions of the Special Counsel’s investigation will be released to Congress and the public after being submitted to the Attorney General has attracted attention. The reporting requirements applicable to the Special Counsel’s investigation indicate a significant degree of deference to the Special Counsel regarding the content of his report to the Attorney General. Governing Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations also give significant deference to the Attorney General regarding release of information related to the report, although the regulations mandate that he report certain information to Congress at the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Some Members of Congress have proposed legislation to ensure that certain information related to the Special Counsel’s investigation is made available to Congress and the public. This Sidebar examines the current legal obligations of the Special Counsel and Attorney General to report information relating to the investigation to Congress and the public. It also provides historical examples of reports issued for other such investigations. A companion Sidebar addresses potential legal issues that may arise if Congress seeks to compel release of information about the investigation, including issues involving executive privilege and the publication of grand jury information. Reporting Requirements Under the Current Special Counsel Regulations Under the current legal framework, there is no statute providing for Special Counsel investigations or specifying information arising from such investigations that must be disclosed to Congress or the public.
    [Show full text]